General Politics Thread

[BawWatchin]

6 hours ago, Mastermind said:

 

And where is the SNP’s solidarity with the homeless Scottish men, women and children when we have vital housing in Glasgow being used up by people with officially no right to be the UK following assessment, but the SNP couldn’t face siding with the Home Office and Serco to remove them from the homes. Tell that to the Scottish families on the street at the moment.

So you're saying they have no right to be in Scotland because the UK Government says so? Well I say **** them. I don't care what shades of skin colour a person has, everybody is entitled to have a roof over their heads. The homeless people on the streets of Scotland have the option of having a roof over their heads. Housing availability isn't the problem. They've become so accustomed to living on the streets, that they have a hard time adjusting to home life.

If you'd actually ever taken the time at least once in your life to stop and chat with a homeless person, instead of walking past them with your toff swagger and nose pointing up to the sky, then you would have known this.

[Ira Gaines]

Mintermind

[Londonwell]

3 hours ago, NotThePars said:

 

Bit of a minter for the cyberda contingent online insisting there was nothing wrong with that article.

 

Yes, similar with those blindly defending Salmond despite zero knowledge of what had taken place. They assumed these women had just made up the accusations cause  its the establishment trying to bring down Eck. Pretty depressing stuff from grown adults.

It is probably true that any large political movement looking to achieve change has to take a large swathe of the numpties with it. The Yes campaign is no different unfortunately.

Any sad act, like me, who attends branch meetings or even in some cases parliamentary events where political staff are involved, will have met these people. There is generally no reasoning with them, but their constant objection to anything that brings into question who or what they believe in does lead to them working hard for the cause. In the cynical world of politics; this is useful.

 

Edited October 31, 2018 by Londonwell

[Mastermind]

So you're saying they have no right to be in Scotland because the UK Government says so? Well I say **** them. I don't care what shades of skin colour a person has, everybody is entitled to have a roof over their heads. The homeless people on the streets of Scotland have the option of having a roof over their heads. Housing availability isn't the problem. They've become so accustomed to living on the streets, that they have a hard time adjusting to home life.
If you'd actually ever taken the time at least once in your life to stop and chat with a homeless person, instead of walking past them with your toff swagger and nose pointing up to the sky, then you would have known this.

Yes, but not everyone has the right to just enter a country and have the right to stay there when they have no entitlement.

Or do you want to just do away with national borders, passport controls, visas etc and everyone can just move to whatever country they want? Minter.

[BawWatchin]

1 minute ago, Mastermind said:

Yes, but not everyone has the right to just enter a country and have the right to stay there when they have no entitlement.

Or do you want to just do away with national borders, passport controls, visas etc and everyone can just move to whatever country they want? Minter.
 

 

Who is and isn't "entitled" in your view?

Perhaps I don't think bigots like yourself are entitled to be here.

[Detournement]

I hate Gideon so much.

[Jambo: First Blood]

7 hours ago, ThatBoyRonaldo said:

I see the SNP have suspended some blogger crank. Right decision tbh - about time we clamped down on these liabilities. You can't call a Labour activist an 'english fifth columnist' and expect to stay in the party. #GammonWeirdosOut, frankly.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-46031103

I posted about this case earlier but that was before the SNP suspended him. 

The SNP have done brilliantly here. Kudos.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Are you seriously suggesting taking money off low earning teachers to subsidise the pay packets of better off teachers?

I thought you were a socialist?

Or is that only until it starts to affect you personally? Like all other socialists?

A true socialist would want lower paid teachers to be given any available money. The better off teachers are fine for now.

This is basically what happens in the modern world where a job has a salary band rather than the person, so basically you could be really experienced, great at your role, but end up above the salary band which in effect prevents you getting a wage increase, on the flip side, the new member of staff is likely to be at the bottom of said salary band so will be given a much higher % rise. There are of course a multitude of arguments both for and against this system but ultimately the worker whether at the top or bottom will be the one screwed over.

There's also a far bigger argument at play here, basically the teaching profession has been left behind in terms of salary when we have IT people earning 4 and 5 times the salary for, some would argue, a less demanding and stressful job. The same argument can be applied to how a Doctor feels when compared to an investment Banker.

Basically we're heading for big problems when we can't attract the best people to the core professions and instead we're paying silly money to the likes of HR people who in the main are ten a penny and don't contribute very much to society. (No offence intended to any HR people out there)....................

[Granny Danger]

Can I use this opportunity to remind folk that oaksoft is a cretin but those who argue with him are more cretinous.

This has been a public service announcement.

 

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Are you seriously suggesting taking money off low earning teachers to subsidise the pay packets of better off teachers? I thought you were a socialist?

Or is that only until it starts to affect you personally? Like all other socialists?

A true socialist would want lower paid teachers to be given any available money. The better off teachers are fine for now.

 

It's called a salary scale for a reason - each year you work you move one point up the scale - lower down the scale it is in reality a double rise - the scale jump plus the pay rise. Why give extra compared to those at the top when they are rewarded through an increase by moving up the scale?

 

 

There is also the reality that in many promoted positions where job sizing has been applied that those staff won't get anything like 3% - I worked out that a 3% rise in my case will work out at £10 a month due to job sizing. I didn't get the previous rise in January because of job sizing - salary frozen until the lower point on the scale matches my current salary. Compounded with real drops in salary over the past years you can imagine that I'm not exactly jumping with joy.

 

 

 

[BawWatchin]

1 hour ago, oaksoft said:

Complaining about 10% when you've just been given 90% is not the way I want to live my life.

Pretty much sums up the mentality of the typical yoon tbh. That we should somehow be greatful for getting 90% of a couple of hundred million, while being told to give 10% of a few hundred billion.

Either mathematics isn't your strong point, or you actively take pride in the shafting.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Pretty much sums up the mentality of the typical yoon tbh. That we should somehow be greatful for getting 90% of a couple of hundred million, while being told to give 10% of a few hundred billion.

Either mathematics isn't your strong point, or you actively take pride in the shafting.

Believe it (or not) Walter Mitty has claimed to be a nationalist in the past.

 

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Can I use this opportunity to remind folk that oaksoft is a cretin but those who argue with him are more cretinous.
This has been a public service announcement.
 

To be fair it was Walter Mitty who responded to my post in the first place.

[Bairnardo]

This is basically what happens in the modern world where a job has a salary band rather than the person, so basically you could be really experienced, great at your role, but end up above the salary band which in effect prevents you getting a wage increase, on the flip side, the new member of staff is likely to be at the bottom of said salary band so will be given a much higher % rise. There are of course a multitude of arguments both for and against this system but ultimately the worker whether at the top or bottom will be the one screwed over.
There's also a far bigger argument at play here, basically the teaching profession has been left behind in terms of salary when we have IT people earning 4 and 5 times the salary for, some would argue, a less demanding and stressful job. The same argument can be applied to how a Doctor feels when compared to an investment Banker.
Basically we're heading for big problems when we can't attract the best people to the core professions and instead we're paying silly money to the likes of HR people who in the main are ten a penny and don't contribute very much to society. (No offence intended to any HR people out there)....................

Decent post except the last bit. Offence to HR people is imperative. c***s.

[NotThePars]

6 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Believe it (or not) Walter Mitty has claimed to be a nationalist in the past.

 

 

Tbf he was a sincere nationalist, and likely actually voted Yes, up until H_B broke his brain. 

[welshbairn]

Heard tales from people I know, probably true, of teachers in schools and in further education being laid off because their experience means they take too much out of the budget, and they can hire more beginners for less or the same money.

[NotThePars]

6 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Heard tales from people I know, probably true, of teachers in schools and in further education being laid off because their experience means they take too much out of the budget, and they can hire more beginners for less or the same money.

 

I know people would claim that Edinburgh Council preferred to constantly take probationers on in lieu of hiring a permanent employee so they'd save money. No idea if it's true or not though.

[welshbairn]

5 minutes ago, ThatBoyRonaldo said:

Isn't most of the Scottish public sector operating under a No Compulsory Redundancy policy? The NHS definitely is. I think it stretches credibility a bit to say councils are laying off teachers in order to directly replace them with new people to save money - without being an expert it doesn't sound legal if nothing else.

NotThePars' scenario sounds more plausible but then I don't know how probationers are allocated. The incentive is certainly there for individual public sector managers to do whatever they can to get costs down - some that I work with are in the habit of shaving a few hours off each role whenever they readvertise a post when someone leaves and the like. So a job that used to be full time is readvertised at 35 hours a week rather than 39 or whatever.

My info comes from Wales and a few years ago. My main example was an FE lecturer who was laid off but snapped up by an English College soon after, so presumably it wasn't for bad performance. Heard of similar things happening to teachers though. All anecdotal, but under the budget constraints it must be tempting, if legal.

[ICTChris]

Edinburgh Council don't lay off teachers.  They can be subject to compulsory transfers to other schools based on need.

 

[NotThePars]

Edinburgh Council don't lay off teachers.  They can be subject to compulsory transfers to other schools based on need.
 

It’s not laying off if it’s probationers though. You’re only guaranteed one year.